Cyclonic Cooking Action:When will they start paying jurors like everyone else in the courtroom, besides the defendant is getting paid?

By refusing to pay a reasonable wage, they ensure that they will be picking jurors from a pool of unemployed people, housewives, senile elderly folk, morons that don't know any better, etc. Basically, it helps them weed out people who might be intelligent enough to have minds of their own. Smart people who can think for themselves generally have day jobs, which makes jury duty something to be avoided at all costs.

vudukungfu:Plastic Trash Vortex: Smart people who can think for themselves generally have day jobs,

They want people that sit home all day watching TV.Programmed people.

speaking of...was trapped at home recently (away from my job) waiting for something or other, and I have a burning question: am I too smart or too stupid to fall for those idiot "you're just sitting on your butt talking on the phone all day anyway so dial this number to start college"?

rkiller1:FTA: "A jury foreman who took to social media to complain about being picked as a juror and then to discuss the murder case while it was still being tried may have put the guilty verdict in jeopardy."

Perhaps the judge should've given the jury instructions not to discuss the case before the verdict?

You assume the judge didn't?

Hell, before jurors were even selected I bet they were all shown a videotape in which the season 2 cast of Law & Order explains why it's important for jury activities to stay private.

ArkAngel:Uzzah: Cyclonic Cooking Action: When will they start paying jurors like everyone else in the courtroom, besides the defendant is getting paid?

When jurors have the training to perform what everyone else in the courtroom is doing and are being hired specifically for the purpose of performing that duty.

They are testing that with certain types of complicated cases (technology, medical malpractice) - getting professional jurors who actually understand what the hell is going on

How about mandating a bench trial with dueling technical experts to advise the lawyers and help the judges with deliberations? That's a lot simpler that trying to get 12 highly-paid professionals to volunteer their work time for months at a time.

I had jury duty once. I didn't expect to be picked, but damned if I wasn't the first one picked. After a week of testimony and dealing with my fellow jurors, the Judge called a mistrial because of some evidence we shouldn't have been shown, or something. Every one of those idiots wanted to discuss the case every time we got a break, even after the Judge gave strict instruction not to until all the testimony was complete.

Never again will I serve on a jury. And I hope I never have to face a jury, because I learned a thing or two from my fellow jurors. Mostly that I don't want idiots like that deciding my fate.

LittleSmitty:I had jury duty once. I didn't expect to be picked, but damned if I wasn't the first one picked. After a week of testimony and dealing with my fellow jurors, the Judge called a mistrial because of some evidence we shouldn't have been shown, or something. Every one of those idiots wanted to discuss the case every time we got a break, even after the Judge gave strict instruction not to until all the testimony was complete.

Never again will I serve on a jury. And I hope I never have to face a jury, because I learned a thing or two from my fellow jurors. Mostly that I don't want idiots like that deciding my fate.

pute kisses like a man:many courthouses don't allow jurors to have phones inside the courthouse. I've also seen judges expressly say, do not post any information on this trial on social media, or you will be in contempt.

personally, i think there should be a verbal and written warning/set of rules to any impaneled juror which fully states the consequences of being in contempt.

I've been in the federal court building a few times, they don't let anyone in with a cellphone. The officers working the front door takes them from you if you didn't think ahead to leave it in the car.

Uzzah:Cyclonic Cooking Action: When will they start paying jurors like everyone else in the courtroom, besides the defendant is getting paid?

When jurors have the training to perform what everyone else in the courtroom is doing and are being hired specifically for the purpose of performing that duty.

That is the question he is asking. When are we going to realize that the idea of 12 peers deciding something is silly and we should find people who have some expertise in the area to determine what is going on?

red_dragon60:Serving on a jury is one of your most solemn civic duties.

I encourage you to ridicule people around you who talk about getting out of it. I sure do.

You also earn the right to complain about jury decisions after you serve on one

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

lack of warmth:pute kisses like a man: many courthouses don't allow jurors to have phones inside the courthouse. I've also seen judges expressly say, do not post any information on this trial on social media, or you will be in contempt.

personally, i think there should be a verbal and written warning/set of rules to any impaneled juror which fully states the consequences of being in contempt.

I've been in the federal court building a few times, they don't let anyone in with a cellphone. The officers working the front door takes them from you if you didn't think ahead to leave it in the car.

/I made the mistake of wearing steel toe boots the first time.

depends on the courthouse. each has their own local rules regarding what is allowed.

/ i've found that the metal detectors/security at courthouses to be more demanding than the TSA.

You're the jerk... jerk:Uzzah: Cyclonic Cooking Action: When will they start paying jurors like everyone else in the courtroom, besides the defendant is getting paid?

When jurors have the training to perform what everyone else in the courtroom is doing and are being hired specifically for the purpose of performing that duty.

That is the question he is asking. When are we going to realize that the idea of 12 peers deciding something is silly and we should find people who have some expertise in the area to determine what is going on?

the reason for lay jurors is important to consider in its context. when america was invented, there was a distrust of the sovereign. the idea that the sovereign would control the paycheck of a juror was considered too grave a conflict of interest. especially considering, in a criminal case, it is the sovereign vs. the defendant.

perhaps tenured jurors could be admissible in civil cases, where the juror is paid by an indifferent third party, but in criminal prosecution, it is a little weird that the same entity prosecuting the defendant paid a salary to the jury. and knows the jury very well (since it has employed them, interviewed them, trained them, educated them, chosen them, recruited them, etc).

theoretically, you could appoint a third party with all sorts of protections, but it is rare that a government appointed third party is truly anonymous. the money must come from somewhere, and the money will always control the outcome.

However, I think that the minimum standards to be on a jury should be elevated.

bench trials are not a great option either, because there is no margin of error for one decision maker. and there are more reasons why it's a bad idea, state judges are often for a term and elected, therefore, they have a conflict of interest to convict.

/ ultimately, there aren't many great solutions. so far, it is the best system created. but, it has a very long way to go to be a good system.

pute kisses like a man:You're the jerk... jerk: Uzzah: Cyclonic Cooking Action: When will they start paying jurors like everyone else in the courtroom, besides the defendant is getting paid?

theoretically, you could appoint a third party with all sorts of protections, but it is rare that a government appointed third party is truly anonymous. the money must come from somewhere, and the money will always control the outcome.

pute kisses like a man:You're the jerk... jerk: Uzzah: Cyclonic Cooking Action: When will they start paying jurors like everyone else in the courtroom, besides the defendant is getting paid?

When jurors have the training to perform what everyone else in the courtroom is doing and are being hired specifically for the purpose of performing that duty.

That is the question he is asking. When are we going to realize that the idea of 12 peers deciding something is silly and we should find people who have some expertise in the area to determine what is going on?

the reason for lay jurors is important to consider in its context. when america was invented, there was a distrust of the sovereign. the idea that the sovereign would control the paycheck of a juror was considered too grave a conflict of interest. especially considering, in a criminal case, it is the sovereign vs. the defendant.

perhaps tenured jurors could be admissible in civil cases, where the juror is paid by an indifferent third party, but in criminal prosecution, it is a little weird that the same entity prosecuting the defendant paid a salary to the jury. and knows the jury very well (since it has employed them, interviewed them, trained them, educated them, chosen them, recruited them, etc).

theoretically, you could appoint a third party with all sorts of protections, but it is rare that a government appointed third party is truly anonymous. the money must come from somewhere, and the money will always control the outcome.

However, I think that the minimum standards to be on a jury should be elevated.

bench trials are not a great option either, because there is no margin of error for one decision maker. and there are more reasons why it's a bad idea, state judges are often for a term and elected, therefore, they have a conflict of interest to convict.

/ ultimately, there aren't many great solutions. so far, it is the best system created. but, it has a very long way to go to be a good system.

As an anti-government libertarian you would think I would still fear the sovereign. But I realize the government is not out to get me (probably because I am a white male) and I am more concerned with an inefficient system.

Other countries (see Germany) have gotten rid of Jury trials all together without a system wide collapse. Granted those are generally, but not exclusively, civil law systems.

pute kisses like a man:Theaetetus: pute kisses like a man: However, I think that the minimum standards to be on a jury should be elevated.

Like, say, minimum income or education levels? Comparison of skin color to a paper bag? Demonstrated knowledge of the distinction between a salad fork and shrimp fork?

there's no judgment in brainstorming!

/ obviously there are pitfalls in my suggestion. I don't have the answers, but, I believe the system could be better.

Coincidentally, just this morning I was hearing about an invisible problem that pops up particularly in the federal courts... there are jury pools where "proper dress" is enforced, with pool members getting sent home by a clerk or bailiff for wearing jeans, or sneakers, or whatnot that they deem "inappropriate". And, overwhelmingly, the people who are wearing jeans or sneakers to sit on a jury rather than slacks and dress shoes are people from lower income or class spheres... so as a result, they get sent home, and the juries end up biased from the get-go, long before voir dire - and good luck ever trying to prove that on appeal.

"Minimum standards" applied via someone's discretion are going to likely result in discrimination.

You're the jerk... jerk:As an anti-government libertarian you would think I would still fear the sovereign. But I realize the government is not out to get me (probably because I am a white male) and I am more concerned with an inefficient system.

Other countries (see Germany) have gotten rid of Jury trials all together without a system wide collapse. Granted those are generally, but not exclusively, civil law systems.

i don;t know if the civilian nature of those jurisdictions plays a large role. i'm in a civilian jurisdiction (louisiana. civilian system for civil law; criminal law follows a common law system), and juries are impaneled and charged much like they are in any other part of the country. maybe with a different vocabulary, but that's about the extent of the difference. juries try only the facts, so the law or legal system are not factors for the jury.

but my argument is not that the government is out to get you. but, the government will be responsible for hiring and retaining its jurors. unless you have lifetime or otherwise non-renewable tenures, you will have a government body deciding which jurors are doing a good job and which jurors should be relieved. what will be the measure of quality?

pute kisses like a man:perhaps tenured jurors could be admissible in civil cases, where the juror is paid by an indifferent third party, but in criminal prosecution, it is a little weird that the same entity prosecuting the defendant paid a salary to the jury.

They already pay the police, prosecutor, and judge, and those three are supposed to be treated as independent and non-partial.

DarkVader:red_dragon60: Serving on a jury is one of your most solemn civic duties.

I encourage you to ridicule people around you who talk about getting out of it. I sure do.

You also earn the right to complain about jury decisions after you serve on one

What if you're never called?

I think I certainly have the right to complain about bad jury decisions anyway.

/I seem to be on the "lifetime jury exclusion" list somehow. Not really sure how that happened.//Not a felon. Citizen by birth. Drive. Vote in every election.

My mom was only just called for jury duty. She was eligible in 1945, voted every election and so forth, and was only summoned a couple years ago, when she'd been in her Alzheimer's care home for a couple years....She just turned 90. Thing was, we told her about it and she was anxious to do it and make sure she did everything right...

This text is now purple:pute kisses like a man: perhaps tenured jurors could be admissible in civil cases, where the juror is paid by an indifferent third party, but in criminal prosecution, it is a little weird that the same entity prosecuting the defendant paid a salary to the jury.

They already pay the police, prosecutor, and judge, and those three are supposed to be treated as independent and non-partial.

Why are you laughing?

no one has ever suggested that the police or the prosecutor is unbiased. of course they are biased, often their salaries/employment are dependent on results. so, no one is laughing because that's not even an accurate cynicism.

the judge is paid no matter what. if he has a bias it is not due to his legitimate salary. however, state court judges that are elected have their record to consider if they plan on running for re-election.

Theaetetus:pute kisses like a man: Theaetetus: pute kisses like a man: However, I think that the minimum standards to be on a jury should be elevated.

Like, say, minimum income or education levels? Comparison of skin color to a paper bag? Demonstrated knowledge of the distinction between a salad fork and shrimp fork?

there's no judgment in brainstorming!

/ obviously there are pitfalls in my suggestion. I don't have the answers, but, I believe the system could be better.

Coincidentally, just this morning I was hearing about an invisible problem that pops up particularly in the federal courts... there are jury pools where "proper dress" is enforced, with pool members getting sent home by a clerk or bailiff for wearing jeans, or sneakers, or whatnot that they deem "inappropriate". And, overwhelmingly, the people who are wearing jeans or sneakers to sit on a jury rather than slacks and dress shoes are people from lower income or class spheres... so as a result, they get sent home, and the juries end up biased from the get-go, long before voir dire - and good luck ever trying to prove that on appeal.

"Minimum standards" applied via someone's discretion are going to likely result in discrimination.

at what point in time does a statistical result not mean discrimination? instructions are printed on the jury summons regarding dress. so, what you are actually separating are:

people who can read from people who cannot (arguably discriminatory, but probably justified by the necessity for literate jurors)

people who attend to details from people who do not (arguably discriminatory, but probably justified by the necessity for attentive jurors)

people who follow instructions from people who do not (arguably discriminatory, but probably justified by the necessity for jurors who follow the court's instructions)

Theaetetus:pute kisses like a man: at what point in time does a statistical result not mean discrimination? instructions are printed on the jury summons regarding dress. so, what you are actually separating are:

people who can read from people who cannot (arguably discriminatory, but probably justified by the necessity for literate jurors)

people who attend to details from people who do not (arguably discriminatory, but probably justified by the necessity for attentive jurors)

people who follow instructions from people who do not (arguably discriminatory, but probably justified by the necessity for jurors who follow the court's instructions)

in my opinion, these are significant state interests.

People who own suits from people who just own jeans and sneakers.

Unless you're going to say that the jury instructions should come with a clothing stipend, of course...

i was recently summoned for jury duty, and the dress requirements were not very strict. additionally, if you were sent home for improper dress, that means you did not satisfy the summons, you were given a date to return and serve. so, anyone without proper dress was not removed from the jury pool. they were just removed that day, to return another day.

the way this court operated, you are summoned for 3 days, you wait in a waiting room. if a judge needs a jury, they take 50 random people from the waiting room, and go through voir dire. once they have their jurors, the unselected return to the waiting room. whatever happens, you are required to be there at least 3 days. if selected, it may be substantially more than 3 days.

if you were asked to leave, you lost credit for the day, and would be required to come another day. so, improper dress would have no ultimate affect on the jury demographics.